Schedule:

Questions to Ponder and Discuss

• When did scientists first know about the Dead Zone?

• First coverage on the Dead Zone appeared in 1985 in United Press International, whereas first broad coverage of the issue by the national press occurred in 1990, and not significantly again until 1992-1993. Why did the issue get such slow initial press coverage, given that research began when it did? What happened in 1992-1993 to increase press coverage?

• How is the article from the Toronto Star in 1990 an example of how reporters cover stories given scientific uncertainty? How do other pieces deal with this problem?

• Toronto Star 1990 Stammer. “A watery desert where nothing lives because pollutants have depleted the oxygen.” Is this accurate? Is this an acceptable distortion? How might you rephrase it?

• How effective was Mark Schleifstein of the Times Picayune in his article “Farms blamed for damage to Gulf food chain” at covering the 1994 paper in Nature by Rabalais?

• How is the scientists’ research ideas characterized or conveyed by journalists? Do journalists take a perjorative tone towards scientists in any of the pieces?

• We have an assortment of news media covering this story. What techniques and devices do the journalists use to appeal to a wide array of audiences? Which ones do a good job? And which do not?

• How well do some of the articles (if any) cover the issue in an objective or balanced way, as opposed to endorsing or “playing to” either side of the controversy?

• Compare and contrast the two articles from Science. How well does each incorporate available scientific information of the time? How does each frame the policy issues of the time?

• Look at coverage in Tech Central Station (a web publishing site underwritten by several conservative think tanks and corporations) and the position statements of the Farm Bureau. What techniques do skeptics use to attack the scientific basis of the dead zone controversy? Now look at coverage from the University of Houston’s Daily Cougar. Compare and contrast.

• Mark Schliefstein’s 1996 piece “Fertilizer, sewage brew Dead Zone” was part 2 of an 8 part series called “Are the World’s Fisheries Doomed” that won the Pulitzer Prize in public service reporting. What attributes made this Pulitzer quality journalism?

Questions to Ponder and Discuss: Pfisteria

• Notice that the Lancet paper had 13 authors and there is a section on page 538 explaining what each author contributed to the study. Do you think this kind of breakdown is likely to be helpful in preventing scientific misconduct?

• If you were writing about the Lancet paper for a popular audience, how would you begin your piece?

• Compare how different articles treated Jo Ann Burkholder.

• Compare how different articles treated the interests of the agriculturalists and fishers.

• Compare how different articles treated politicians and state governments.

• Richmond Times, October 16, 1997, Rex Springston. Does this Q & A format work well? Under what circumstances would you favor using this Q&A strategy?

• Washington Post Outlook section, Sep 21, 1997. What does the first person perspective add to this article, relative to all the 3rd person articles we have read?

• How well did the local and regional papers handle the level of uncertainty surrounding the science of Pfiesteria? Point out good and bad examples.

• How well did the local and regional papers handle the intersection between policy and science, and in particular the difficulties of making policy decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty?

• Find examples of good news stories, as contrasted with all the horror story pieces. What makes an effective good news story?

• In his book, Rodney Barker exposes to the reader more of the journalist’s techniques than is typical, for example by quoting the exact question he asked in an interview, explaining why he sequenced an interview in a certain order. Based on the chapter included in your reading book (which comes towards the end of the book), why do you think he did this, and is it effective?

• Fresh rounds of criticisms of Jo Ann Burkholder’s research erupted in Oct-Nov 1999 and again in Aug-Sep 2002. How did the different media handle this renewed controversy?

1996: commercial fishermen (watermen) began noticing “punched out” necrotic ulcers and erratic swimming behaviour in fish in the estuaries along the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay.

August 1997: fish kills in eastern shore of Chesapeake.

Fall 1999: Hurricane Floyd dumped 20 inches of rain on North Carolina, following a drought. Flooded farms. 100 million gallons of hog effluent dumped into waterways. No big pfiesteria outbreak, maybe because of dilution?

Solow, Andrew S. 2004. Red Tides and Dead Zones: The coastal ocean is suffering from an overload of nutrients, Oceanus online magazine of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (adapted from “Red Tides and Dead Zones: Eutrophication in the Marine Environment,” which first appeared in U. S. Policy and the Global Environment, Last updated Dec. 22, 2004.

2001. Image from “Pfiesteria: From Biology to Human Health”, Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 109, Supplement 5, October 2001, Monograph based on articles presented at the CDC National Conference on Pfiesteria: From Biology to Public Health held 18-20 October 2000 in Stone Mountain Georgia USA, edited by Michael A. McGeehin and Carol H. Rubin.